HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3c: Agreement with Gateway Cities Council of Governments for LA River Metals TMDL Site StudiesDATE: October 19, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Tait, Public Works Services Director
Prepared by: Carmen Trujillo, Management Aide
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM
OF AGREEMENT WITH THE GATEWAY CITIES COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS FOR OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
LOS ANGELES RIVER METALS TMDL SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
STUDIES
Recommendation: Approve
SUMMARY
In September of 2007, The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Regional Board) adopted the Los Angeles River Metals Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) which limits the concentration of metals in the Los Angeles River. The Metals
TMDL was approved by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and
became effective on October 29, 2008. The Metals TMDL mandates stringent
compliance activities which have high implementation costs. Performing scientific
studies might help ease the ultimate burden of implementing the Metals TMDL by
proving that the Los Angeles River is capable of tolerating higher concentrations of
metals without exhibiting toxicity and being harmful to aquatic life and human health.
The Regional Board has authorized the Los Angeles River Watershed to perform
scientific studies and has committed to re- evaluating the Metals TMDL using data from
the studies. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City
Manager to execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Gateway Cities
Council of Governments (GCCOG) for the oversight and development of the Los
Angeles River Metals TMDL Site Specific Objective (SSO) Studies.
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified over 700
water body impairments, including the Los Angeles River and its tributaries and adopted
a Consent Decree which mandated a schedule for addressing these water bodies. The
Los Angeles River Metals TMDL was adopted by the Regional Board in September of
2007, pursuant to the Consent Decree and was approved as an amendment to the Los
Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT
Public Works Services Department
Mayor and City Council
October 19, 2010
Angeles Basin Plan in October of 2008. The Metals TMDL is a federal mandate based
on potentially toxic concentrations of metal and established limits for copper, lead, zinc,
cadmium and selenium in the Los Angeles River. Forty (40) watershed cities, along
with the Los Angeles County and Caltrans, are now mandated to monitor and take
actions to improve water quality in the Los Angeles River with respect to the Metals
TMDL. It also requires that the City follows stringent compliance activities. The Metals
TMDL consists of the following three elements:
1. Special Studies- studies performed to find out what the maximum concentration
of certain metals in the LA River would be before the amount would be
considered toxic.
2. Monitoring Plan- monitoring of water quality at key locations along the Los
Angeles River in order to isolate sources of pollutants. Completed in June 2010.
3. Implementation Plan- a plan designed to reduce the amount of metal pollutants
found in the Los Angeles River. Completed in October 2010.
Elements of the Metals TMDL can be extremely expensive and requires expertise that is
beyond staff's abilities. However, by working with other cities in the Los Angeles River
Watershed, the City of Arcadia has been able to complete two of the three elements of
the Metals TMDL in the most cost effective manner.
The City of Arcadia must now perform special scientific studies to amend Metals waste
load allocations that were assigned by EPA scientist. Performing scientific studies is
the only way to alleviate the City from expensive compliance activities. Scientific
studies can be costly for the City to perform on its own. Therefore, staff has continued
working with other agencies in the Los Angeles River Watershed on finding a regional
approach to completing scientific studies and determining which studies would be most
cost effective and helpful in amending the Metals TMDL.
DISCUSSION
A Waste Load Allocation (WLA) is the maximum amount of a pollutant that is allowed to
be released into a particular waterway. The Metals TMDL WLAs were assigned by EPA
scientist who produced overly conservative Metal standards for the Los Angeles River.
The standards are not fitting to the current conditions in the Los Angeles River.
Preliminary scientific studies have demonstrated that the Los Angles River is capable of
tolerating higher concentrations of metals without hurting aquatic life and /or human
health. Only scientific studies can verify this premise.
The Metals TMDL identifies several voluntary studies that could help reduce scientific
uncertainties of the Metals TMDL. Since 2005, the City of Arcadia has met with several
cities in the Los Angeles River Watershed, the County of Los Angeles and Caltrans to
discuss the need to undertake scientific studies to address the Metals TMDL. In July
2006, thirty six (36) of forty (40) cities in the Los Angeles River Watershed, the County
of Los Angeles and Caltrans recommended formation of a committee to assess the
Page 2 of 4
Mayor and City Council
October 19, 2010
feasibility of undertaking special scientific studies. As a result, a steering committee
was formed and soon after two studies were recommended as having merit. Following
a March 20, 2008 City Managers meeting, cities in the Los Angeles River Watershed
decided that a scientific consultant be obtained to propose special scientific studies. In
2009, the agencies agreed that the City of Los Angeles would lead and fund Site
Specific Objective/Water Effects Ratio (SSO) Studies while the remaining group would
begin working on a work plan for Atmospheric Deposition and Natural Runoff Loads
Studies (Special Studies).
The City of Los Angeles completed the preliminary SSO Studies and determined that
moving forward with final SSO Studies is economically advisable and the best option to
amend the Metals TMDL waste load allocations. The SSO preliminary studies indicated
that higher than anticipated metals standards would still provide beneficial use
protection intended by the TMDL. The Regional Board has accepted the preliminary
SSO studies and authorized the Los Angeles River Watershed to perform these studies
and will accept the scientific studies to re- evaluate the Metals TMDL waste load
allocations. On February 25, 2010, the Metals TMDL steering committee held a City
Managers meeting and advised that agencies in the Los Angeles Watershed defer the
Special Studies and proceed with completing the final SSO Studies. Cities representing
97% of the Watershed (including Arcadia) tentatively voted to support this important
effort (See Attached Exhibit C).
Based on the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) experience in
administering multi- agency agreements with Los Angeles County, Caltrans and other
local agencies, the GCCOG agreed to provide administrative services and act as the
fiduciary agent for the SSO Studies. Their services will include MOA retention, invoicing
for study cost, tracking payments and paying consultant invoices at the direction of the
Watershed committee. The MOA between the GCCOG is a cost sharing agreement to
implement and develop the scientific studies related to the Metals TMDL for the Los
Angeles River and its tributaries. Given the complexity of the scientific studies and the
Metals TMDL, the steering committee has also recommended the retention of a
scientific advisor.
The SSO Studies are the only way that waste load allocations for the Metals TMDL can
be changed. If the scientific studies are not performed, the City will be required to meet
the existing mandates which will include the construction of treatment devices. The
annual maintenance and operation cost for treatment devices could be in the millions.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Steering Committee has agreed on a cost sharing funding formula that is equitable
for all of the cities and regulated entities in the Watershed (See Attached Exhibit D).
The total estimated cost of the Final SSO/WER Studies is approximately $2.1 million.
Arcadia's portion will cost approximately $41,789.43 over the next three fiscal years and
includes the cost of the GCCOG administrative services, the SSO Studies and a
scientific advisor. This amount can increase depending on the number of cities that
Page 3of4
Mayor and City Council
October 19, 2010
choose to participate in this regional effort. However 97% of the watershed has already
tentatively voted to support this study and participation of all agencies is expected.
Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the 2010 -2011 Capital Improvement Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT WITH THE GATEWAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
FOR OVERSIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES RIVER
METALS TMDL SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE STUDIES
TT: CT
Approved by: ,D)j-vt4 Q
Page 4 of 4
Donald Penman, City Manager
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE GATEWAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
AND THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING TO UNDERTAKE
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES TO DEVELOP SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES (SSO)
APPLICABLE TO THE LOS ANGELES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES METALS
TMDL
This Memorandum of Agreement ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into
as of the date of the last signature set forth below by and between the Gateway
Cities Council of Governments, a California joint powers authority ( "GCCOG "),
and the City of Arcadia, a California municipal corporation ( "City "); (hereinafter
"Party" or "Parties ") with respect to the following:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the mission of the GCCOG includes environmental planning
and providing technically sound analyses to its member cities and agencies; and
WHEREAS, fifteen of the GCCOG's member cities are located within the
Los Angeles River watershed, and the GCCOG has previously entered into
interagency agreements, with these and other cities, the California Department of
Transportation ( "Caltrans ") and the County of Los Angeles to undertake projects
and studies of regional significance, including the Los Angeles River and
Tributaries Metals Total Maximum Daily Load ( "Los Angeles River Metals TMDL"
or "TMDL ") Coordinated Monitoring Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region ( "Regional Board ") adopted the TMDL in September of 2007, with the
intent of improving water quality in the Los Angeles River and its tributaries; and
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that the TMDL is not self- enforcing, but
could become enforceable by incorporation into National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits such as those regulating Waste Discharge
Requirements for Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within
the County of Los Angeles, and the incorporated cities therein; and
WHEREAS, this TMDL constrains runoff discharges from construction
sites, industrial facilities, forty Cities, Caltrans, the County of Los Angeles, and
other permittees, requiring cooperation among the Participating Agencies, as set
forth in Exhibit "C" hereto; and
1
WHEREAS, a Los Angeles River Watershed Management Committee,
required by the Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit, meets on a regular basis
and is attended by representatives of the Participating Agencies; and
WHEREAS, a TMDL Technical Committee, consisting of representatives
from the Participating Agencies, has been established to understand the TMDL
requirements and plan potential compliance and implementation strategies; and
WHEREAS, a TMDL Steering Committee, consisting of representatives
from the Participating Agencies, has been established to provide administrative
oversight regarding implementation of the TMDL; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles Rivers Metals TMDL allows and encourages
Participating Agencies to undertake technical or scientific studies to improve
understanding of the complex interactions of river constituents within the context
of both the urban and natural watershed environments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles oversaw completion of a Preliminary
Water- Effects Ratio (WER) study and supported development of the TMDL SSO
work plan dated May 20, 2009 by Larry Walker Associates (LWA), which was
reviewed by Participating Agency and Regional Board representatives; and
WHEREAS, the LWA work plan proposes to undertake Copper Water
Effects Ratio and Lead Recalculation studies, that should provide data to support
development of a Basin Plan Amendment with Site Specific Objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies met on February 25, 2010 to learn
about SSO studies and a majority agreed to support the proposed studies; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies have cooperated in resolving
outstanding questions and developing this Agreement to fund the study; and
WHEREAS, undertaking the TMDL SSO studies requires professional
administrative and fiduciary services that the Participating Agencies desire the
GCCOG to provide, and the GCCOG has agreed to provide such services; and
WHEREAS, a work plan for the Copper Water- Effects Ratio and Lead
Recalculation studies, which are the services to be provided by Larry Walker
Associates, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", and Project Management related to
these studies, which will be provided by Flow Sciences, Inc., is attached hereto
as Exhibit "B "; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies have agreed to share in fully
funding the proposed Los Angeles River Metals TMDL Site Specific Objectives
studies, including those costs incurred by the GCCOG in administering this
Agreement, based on the 3 year cost allocations contained in Exhibit "D "; and
2
WHEREAS, the GCCOG will endeavor to execute materially and
substantially similar cost sharing agreements with all of the Participating
Agencies, identified in Exhibit "C" attached hereto, before this Agreement
becomes enforceable, unless stated otherwise elsewhere in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
conditions set forth herein, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are fully incorporated as
part of this Agreement.
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to cooperatively
fund implementation of the proposed TMDL Site Specific Objectives Studies.
Section 3. Cooperation. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one
another to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
Section 4. Voluntary Nature. The Parties voluntarily enter into this
Agreement to support the TMDL Site Specific Objectives studies.
Section 5. Term. This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until
completion of the TMDL SSO studies and proposed Basin Plan Amendment.
Section 6. Technical Scope of Services. The technical scope of services
for the TMDL Site Specific Objectives studies is set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto and
incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.
Section 7. Project Management Services. The project management
services for the TMDL Site Specific Objectives studies is set forth in Exhibit "B"
hereto and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.
Section 8. Role of the GCCOG.
a) For an estimated sum of $10,000 per fiscal year for four fiscal
years, the GCCOG shall provide administrative and fiduciary services
related to implementation of the Los Angeles River Metals TMDL SSO
studies. The GCCOG service costs shall include compensation for
staff time, audit expenses, and costs incurred in administrating
agreements.
b) The GCCOG shall enter into substantially and materially similar
agreements with each of the Participating Agencies to effectuate the
purposes of the Agreement.
c) To effectuate the Agreement, based on the services and costs
identified in Exhibits "A" and "B ", the GCCOG shall invoice and collect
3
payment from the Participating Agencies, based on the SSO studies
cost allocation estimates as set forth in Exhibit "D." Any overpayment
or underpayment shall be credited or billed to the next year's invoice
or, if it occurs during the last year, it shall be reimbursed at Agreement
termination.
d) Following the directions of the Los Angeles River Metals TMDL
Steering Committee, the GCCOG shall contract with LWA and Flow
Science Inc. to prepare the TMDL SSO studies, and then reimburse
the Consultants for their completed services as described in this
Agreement. The contracts shall substantially and materially conform to
the services set forth in Exhibit "A" and "B" to this Agreement.
Section 9. Assessment of Proportional SSO studies Costs. The City of
Arcadia agrees to provide funds to the GCCOG, to effectuate the TMDL SSO
studies, based on the Fiscal Year Invoice Amounts in Exhibit "D ".
Section 10. Invoicing and Payment.
a) Invoicing — In order to begin the SSO studies during the 2010 rain
year, the GCCOG shall invoice the Participating Agencies for the Fiscal
Year 2010 -1 Invoice Amounts shown in Exhibit "D" immediately following
execution of this Agreement. From thereon, invoicing will be done in July
of each Fiscal Year. Participating Agencies shall pay the GCCOG within
sixty (60) days of the invoice date, which is the payment due date.
b) Late Payment Penalty — Any payment that is late shall be subject to
interest from the payment due date. The interest rate shall be equal to the
Prime Rate in effect on the payment due date, plus one percent, for any
payment that is made from 1 to 30 days after the due date. The Prime
Rate in effect on the payment due date, plus five (5) percent, shall apply
for any payment made from 31 to 60 days after the due date. The Prime
Rate in effect on the payment due date, plus ten (10) percent, shall apply
for any payment made more than 60 days after the due date. The rates
shall, nevertheless, not exceed the maximum allowed by law.
c) Delinquent Payments — The payment from a Participating Agency is
considered to be delinquent 180 days after being invoiced by the GCCOG.
The following actions may be implemented to attain delinquent payments
from any Participating Agencies per instruction by the Steering
Committee: 1) verbally contact/meet with the manager from the
Participating Agencies, 2) send a letter of delinquency to the Participating
Agencies from the GCCOG attorney, and 3) formally notify the Regional
Board in writing that the agencies are no longer Participating Agencies. In
any remaining fiscal periods, the Steering Committee would revise
Exhibits "C" and "D" to exclude any such agencies and distribute the
4
delinquent amounts amongst the remaining Participating Agencies based
on the existing cost allocation formula. The Steering Committee shall
provide any revised exhibits to the GCCOG and Participating Agencies.
d) Interest Accrual — Any investment or late payment interest accrued
on funds collected during the term of, and per, this Agreement shall be re-
deposited into the Agreement account and used for its implementation.
The GCCOG shall annually report to the Steering Committee regarding
interest and late payment penalties accrued by the Agreement account(s).
e) Study Payments — Each month, the Consultants may submit
invoices to the Technical Committee for consideration, which may then
recommend the invoice to the Steering Committee for approval and
payment by the GCCOG. The GCCOG shall reimburse the Consultants
for their services in accordance with Exhibits "A" and "B" within ninety (90)
days of receipt of the invoice from the Consultants. The GCCOG shall not
be obligated to remit to the Consultants more than the amount it has
collected from Participating Agencies pursuant to this Agreement, less its
administrative costs. In the event that funds received by the GCCOG are
insufficient to cover the invoiced costs within 90 days of invoice receipt,
but are subsequently received, those subsequent amounts shall be paid to
the Consultants within 30 days of receipt by the GCCOG. The
professional service cost estimates presented in Exhibits "A" and "B" are
subject to change pursuant to a Regional Board requirement or
unforeseen challenges in the field. The Technical Committee shall be
notified by the Consultants of any substantive changes in the actual cost
of the SSO studies, which will be reconciled with the next payment.
Section 11. Independent Contractor.
a) The GCCOG is and shall at all times remain a wholly independent
contractor for performance of the obligations described in this
Agreement. The GCCOG officers, employees and agents performing
such obligations shall at all times be under the GCCOG's exclusive
control. The Participating Agencies shall not have control over the
conduct of the GCCOG or any of its officers, employees or agents,
except as set forth in this Agreement. The GCCOG, and its officers,
employees, or agents are not and shall not be deemed to be
employees of the Participating Agencies.
b) No employee benefits shall be available to the GCCOG in connection
with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. The
GCCOG is solely responsible for the payment of salaries, wages, other
compensation, employment taxes, worker's compensation, or similar
taxes for its employees for performing obligations hereunder.
5
Section 12. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the
City of Arcadia and the GCCOG agree to save, indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless each other from any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration
proceedings, administrative proceedings, and regulatory proceedings, losses,
expenses, or any injury or damage of any kind whatsoever, whether actual,
alleged or threatened, attorney fees, court costs, and any other costs of any
nature without restriction incurred in relation to, as a consequence of, or arising
out of, the performance of this Agreement, and attributable to the fault of the
other. Following a determination of the percentage of fault and or liability by
agreement between the Parties or a court of competent jurisdiction, the Party
responsible for liability to the other will indemnify the other Party to this
Agreement for the percentage of liability determined.
Section 13. Agreement Termination. Either Party may terminate this
Agreement for any reason, in whole or part, by giving the other Party thirty (30)
days written notice thereof. The City of Arcadia shall be responsible for the
allocated study costs incurred up to the date of the termination. The GCCOG
shall notify in writing the remaining Participating Agencies within fourteen (14)
days of receiving written notice from the City of Arcadia that it intends to
terminate this Agreement.
Section 14. Miscellaneous.
a) Notices. All notices which any Party is required or desires to give
hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when
delivered personally or three (3) days after mailing by registered or
certified mail (return receipt requested) to the following address or as
such other addresses as the Parties may from time to time designate
by written notice in the aforesaid manner:
To GCCOG:
To City of Arcadia:
Donald Penman
City Manager
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91066
b) Separate Accounting and Auditing. The GCCOG agrees to establish a
separate account to track the revenues from the Participating Agencies
and the expenses from the study. Quarterly financial statements and
the annual audit will be made available to all of the Participating
Agencies and the Steering and Technical Committees.
6
Mr. Richard Powers
Executive Director
16401 Paramount Blvd.
Paramount, CA 90723
c) Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of each Party to this Agreement and their respective heirs,
administrators, representatives, successors and assigns.
d) Amendment. The terms and provisions of this Agreement may not be
amended, modified or waived, except by an instrument in writing
signed by the Parties.
e) Waiver. Waiver by any Party to this Agreement of any term, condition,
or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any Party to any breach of the
provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any
provision of this Agreement.
f) Law to Govern; Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted,
construed, and governed according to the laws of the State of
California. In the event of litigation between the Parties, venue in the
state trial courts shall lie exclusively in the County of Los Angeles.
No Presumption in Drafting. The Parties to this Agreement agree that
the general rule, that an Agreement is to be interpreted against the
Party drafting it or causing it to be prepared, shall not apply.
h) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of
the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes
all prior or contemporaneous agreements, whether written or oral, with
respect thereto.
1) Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this
Agreement is declared or determined by any court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining
provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and this
Agreement shall be read and constructed without the invalid, void, or
unenforceable provision(s).
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken
together shall constitute but one and the same instrument, provided,
however, that such counterparts shall have been delivered to both
Parties to this Agreement.
k) Legal Representation. All Parties have been represented by counsel
in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement. Accordingly, this
Agreement shall be construed according to its fair language.
I) Agency Authorization. Each of the persons signing below on behalf of
a Party represents and warrants that he or she is authorized to sign
this Agreement on behalf of such Party.
g)
j)
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to
be executed on their behalf, respectively, as follows:
DATE: CITY OF ARCADIA
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
DATE: GATEWAY CITIES COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS
ATTEST:
Richard Powers, Secretary
City Manager
8
Gil Hurtado President
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
COPPER WATER- EFFECTS RATIO AND LEAD RECALCULATION STUDY
LOS ANGELES RIVER METALS TMDL
Task 1. Implement Final Work Plan
Task 1.1 Finalize sampling schedule and coordinate toxicity and chemistry
laboratories as well as sampling sub - consultants to review sample
collection and analysis procedures.
Task 1.2 Provide support to Metals TMDL Coordinated Monitoring Program
(CMP) staff for the collection and analysis of dry weather BML
samples in coordination of the CMP events. Conduct analysis of
BLM samples collected during wet weather through Task 1.3. This
task is optional and if the Steering Committee chooses to
implement this aspect of the scope of work, LWA will work with the
CMP members to determine if it is feasible given the current CMP
work load.
Task 1.3 Conduct WER sampling, and coordinate toxicity and chemistry
testing by qualified labs. The cost estimate provided is based on
the comments received to date and the current approach to
addressing the comments. This approach is still under discussion
with the Regional Board and the TAX. The key assumptions made
in the cost estimate are provided in the cost estimate section below.
Task 1.4 Conduct additional toxicity testing and general chemistry analysis
(hardness and Total Suspended Solids) to evaluate potential
effects of the 2009 Station Fire on WER testing in the Arroyo Seco
and Verdugo Wash
Task 1.5 Receive, review and QA/QC WER water quality toxicity testing
data.
Task 1.6 Conduct a meeting with the Stakeholder Committee, to review the
results of sampling data in the midpoint of the sample collection
effort.
Costs - $969,626.00
Task 2 Develop Final Reports
Task 2.1 Develop a Preliminary Draft Lead Recalculation Report and
conduct a conference call with Los Angeles River Metals TMDL
Technical Committee (TC). The draft report will summarize the
date utilized, the analysis conducted, and the results of the
recalculation of the lead criteria as outlined in the Final Work Plan.
Task 2.2 Conduct a conference call with TC designee, Regional Board staff
and TAC to discuss the Preliminary Draft Recalculation Report.
9
Task 2.3 Revise the Preliminary Draft Lead Recalculation based on
comments received by the Regional Board staff, TAC, and a
conference call with the TC.
Task 2.4 Conduct a meeting with the Stakeholder Committee to review the
Draft Recalculation Report.
Task 2.5 Finalize the Lead Recalculation based on comments received by
the Stakeholder Committee and conduct a conference call with TC.
Task 2.6 Develop a WER Calculation Memorandum presenting the WER
data for each sample and propose final WER calculation methods.
The final WER calculation method details how each WER sample
will be determining the final WER. The memorandum is used as
the basis for the approach to calculating the final WERs. Conduct
conference call with the TC.
Task 2.7 Conduct a conference call with TC designee, Regional Board staff
and TAC to discuss the WER Calculation Memorandum.
Task 2.8 Develop a Preliminary Draft WER Report that summarizes the
sampling activities, details the analysis conducted per the Work
Plan, provides the information required by the Interim Guidance,
and presents the resulting final WERs as outlined in the Work Plan.
This report is intended to embody the technical requirements of
developing a SSO based on the Interim Guidance. Conduct a
conference call with TC.
Task 2.9 Conduct a conference call with TC designee, Regional Board staff
and TAC to discuss the Preliminary Draft WER Report.
Task 2.10 Revise the Preliminary Draft WER Report and conduct a
conference call with TC.
Task 2.11 Conduct a meeting with the Stakeholder Committee to review the
Draft WER Report.
Task 2.12 Finalize the Draft WER Report based on comments received by the
Stakeholder Committee and conduct a conference call with the TC.
Task 2.13 Conduct a meeting (in person or via conference call) with the TC
designee, Regional Board, and TAC (via conference call) to finalize
the WER report.
Task 2.14 Develop Implementation Report that summarizes additional
analysis conducted to support the implementation of the SSO's as
outlined in the Final Work Plan. This report is intended to embody
the policy based requirements of implementing SSOs based on the
results of conducting a WER Study and Lead Recalculation.
Conduct a conference call with TC.
Task 2.15 Conduct a meeting with the Stakeholder Committee to review the
Draft Implementation Report.
Task 2.16 Finalize the Draft Implementation Report based on comments
received by the Stakeholder Committee and conduct a conference
call with the TC.
10
Task 2.17
Cost - $391,855.00
Task 3 Develop and Support WER Basin Plan Amendment
Task 3.1
Task 3.2
Task 3.3
Task 3.4
Task 3.5
Task 3.6
Provide support to the Regional Board staff during the State Board
peer review process. It is unclear the extent to which the Regional
Board would require support, as such a rough estimate is provided.
Prepare a Draft Basin Plan Amendment (BPA) and environmental
review for Regional Board consideration and comment for
appropriately adjusting water quality objectives for metals of
concern in the reaches /tributaries of concern. Conduct a
conference call with TC.
Revise Draft BPA and submit to Regional Board for 45 -day posting.
Develop comments on the tentative BPA, if necessary.
Prepare response to 45 -day posting comments, revise Draft BPA, if
necessary, and submit to Regional Board for adoption hearing.
Attend Regional Board adoption hearing(s).
Prepare the administrative record for the State Board hearing.
Cost - $35,804.00
Task 4 Project Management
Cost - $21,827 (Estimated $7,300 annually)
11
letoi.
$937,313
8£1`98£$
ti08`9£$
$21,827
1£8` 18£`1$
$1,419,267
Toxicity
Testing
$237,918
260`9$
£99`£tiZ$
$255,846
slsAleuy
wagD
$252,918
$252,918
$265,563
Outreach
Costs
0
$28,000
000`9£$_
008`1£$
qnS
6ulldwes
$147,770 1
Otat$
040`054$
419`191
TAC
Costs
$66,000
000'99$
00£`69$
LWA
Costs
990`46Z$
90ti1P8Z$
t+08`9£$
LZ8` 4Z$
$633,247 1
$633,247
Work Plan Task
Description
Implement WER Work Plan
Lead Recalculation & WER
Implementation Reports
BPA Develop & Support
PM & Contract Administ.
LWA 5% markup
Task No
e-
N
M
`t
le ;oi
C
O
J
a)
L
• O
C 4,
cu
✓ a)
O N
C E
O O
L
� o
t6 O
O �
O
a) Ly
O N
U +'
c)
O
-
O
C C
U O ft
C
2
2 0)
CC
.Q L
- a �O
al (
O a
O 0
O O
C
a)
O
z
•
N
E
O
J
2
co
4-
a)
a)
U
a)
a)
a)
0
J
a)
-C
O
0
0.
a
0)
c)
a)
Q.
0)
0
U
co
CC U
a)
06
a)
- J
Justification Report for: Site-
lementation of the Los An
eles River and
Final State Im
Task 1
EXHIBIT "B"
PROJECT MANAGEMENT RELATED TO THE SPECIAL STUDIES
LOS ANGELES RIVER WER AND RECALCULATION STUDY
Review of Draft Documents
Based on the draft LWA scope of work for the special studies, a
number of documents will require review as follows:
• Sampling schedule and plan
• WER final work plan (after incorporation of Regional Board
and TAC edits)
• Lead recalculation report (preliminary draft, revised draft and
final report)
• WER calculation memorandum proposing final WER edits
• WER report (preliminary, draft, revised draft and final report)
• Basin Plan Amendment (draft and final)
• Administrative record (following study completion and
adoption of Basin Plan Amendment)
Cost — The total budget for document review is estimated at
$32,835 (current year dollars)
Task 2 Participation in meetings and conference calls
A number of conference calls and meetings have been identified in
the draft LWA scope of work, as follows:
• Meeting to discuss Regional Board and TAX comments on
the draft work plan
• Midpoint meeting with Stakeholder Committee to review
sampling results
• Three (3) conference calls and one (1) meeting related to the
lead recalculation report
• Two (2) conference calls related to the WER calculation
memorandum
• Four (4) conference calls and two (2) meetings associated
with the WER report
• Two (2) conference calls and three (3) meetings associated
with the implementation report
• Two (2) conference calls associated with the Basin Plan
Amendment
• One (1) Regional Board hearing for consideration of the
Basin Plan Amendment
Cost — The cost estimate for this work is $35,630 (current year
dollars)
13
Task 3 Project management and coordination
This special study is estimated to involve four (4) hours of project
management and coordination with the Steering and Technical
Committees per month, and that the total duration will be three
years (36) months.
Cost - $32,960 (current years dollars)
Fiscal Year Budget Estimates (with 5% annual cost escalation)
FY2010 -2011 - $30,300
FY2011 -2012 - $31,900
FY2012 -2013 - $44,750
Total $107,000
14
1) City of Arcadia
2) City of Bell
3) City of Bell Gardens
4) City of Bradbury
5) City of Burbank
6) Caltrans
7) City of Carson
8) City of Commerce
9) City of Compton
10) City of Downey
11) City of Duarte
12) City of El Monte
13) City of Glendale
14) City of Hidden Hills
15) City of Huntington Park
16) City of Irwindale
17) City of La Canada Flintridge
18) City of Long Beach
19) City of Los Angeles
EXHIBIT "C"
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
LOS ANGELES RIVER METALS TMDL
SPECIAL STUDIES
15
20) City of Lynwood
21) City of Maywood
22) City of Monrovia
23) City of Montebello
24) City of Monterey Park
25) City of Paramount
26) City of Pasadena
27) City of Pico Rivera
28) City of Rosemead
29) City of San Fernando
30) City of San Gabriel
31) City of San Marino
32) City of Sierra Madre
33) City of Signal Hill
34) City of South El Monte
35) City of South Gate
36) City of South Pasadena
37) City of Vernon
38) LA County Unincorporated
Total Estimated
Apportionment** - involoo Costs per
Retie Rate Anse Amount A. reement Term
$0.00
$1,4481 ' - $1,9401 *41,789.431
$363 .$855 *18,929.301
$3291 4821 $18,203.58
$1861; $678 $15,189.06
$2,2881 - 4 $2.7611 $59,709.101
s i ,489I - $1,9811 *42,654.711
10 0 . 0 $ J ot: - 1 I
- 41171.11i- - 7‘: ' *13,737.62
*369 .41,361 $29,591.78
$.1.:A40 V.,„"I1,632 I $35,285.88
$0.00
• $7501 41,2421 $27,079.67
$305 *7971 $17,701.16
$9241 *1,4161 $30,736.18
$4,057 *4,549 $96,748.66
$208 $700 $15,663.56
$401 $864 $19,738.75
$2501 *7431 $16,556.76
$1,136 $1,628 *35,202.14
• 52,207 $2,7001 $57,783.15
$37,291 - *37,783J $254,996.12
$6431 $1,1351 *24,818.78
$156 $6481 $14,574.99
$1,370 *1,862 *40,142.61
$1,108 $1,600 *34,615.98
• $1,0151 $1,5071 $32,662.131
$575 *1,0671 $23,395.26
1 $3,0081 $3,5001 $74,642.151
t7Z'8Z9'SZ* leLt`i$ 11419*
96696'61.$ 1906$ - 18C.17$
• $3191 $8111 $18,008.191
$546 $1,0381 $22,781.19
0 i'LZ9`6 IS 9888 1968$
5£'9LL'ir5 066$ soft
$1501 $6421 *14,435.42
$277 $769 *17,115.00
$9911 $1,483 *32,159.70
$4541 $947 *20,855.24
9L0917'9$ 991.`1.$ 21.9$
000$ 0$
$83,6241 $87,4761 $4921 $10,6811 $11,1731 $236,282.001
$545,572J *691,9831 $18,700 I 579,7231 $98,42311 $1,566,267.001
no CPI adiustment. WER Development = 11 8611.400.001
71
Z617$
Z6t
U6t7*
. Z617$
Z617$
Z61
Z6VS
Z6VS
Z617$
Z6178-, -
Z61
Zetr*
Z61+8
Z6t -
Z6P$
Z6tr$
Z6t7$
Zan"
Z617*
Z6til
Z617S-
1Z 6175 1
Z617$
Z
Z6VS
Z617$
ZS:PS'
Z617$
3
Mr*
Z617$
Z617$
Z617$
Base, AreA Amount B Invoice Amount
1.22583% ; 1 " . $0
969'94
Z6L '914
goes*
arle98
rtg`St8
zortr$
los
$4,766
$10,658
o$
s•LL'zi.*
sre9$
szL'6$
$11,083
$35,618
*5,482
*6,996
r*Lt
1
$21,136
$217,213
$8,884
$5,077
$14,579
$12,525
66L'I.t$
I zoteLz$
$7,090
$9,185
$6,353
$8,127
986'95
E9L`LS
cro'9$
SZOV$
me.L$
VZ1.`6$
zycers
occ 1-6
$2,573
$1,452
099 1.1.$
6661.1.1
sos' 9$
£1.6$
Z Z6'8 $
989n
ZL8'9$
$7,231
$31,765
et 1.96
6Z9'1.$
$1,961
$8,890
$17,283
$213,360
so'ss
$10,727
$8,673
ZO9' VS
91'6'L$
$23,5491
Z£V9$
ez.
ii.Lz '14
009'Z$
ZOL'e$
L06`E$
$1,172
$2,168
$7,760
$3,558
oLeg$
1.76293% $1747211,:: $24„658, $3,853
0.44194% ,yJo,oso . $44421 $11,379 $3,853
0.40001% .:44;8381- 44,021 .:414951 I $3,853
0.22581% ::•:'..;: ::::42;1101:$942001 $3,853
2.79843% . 1;:L$315;001.1 $3,853
1.81293%: .1 $3,853
1 '1% L0 0 1
0.14194%
r$0881 $3,853
1.05808% $,0 *17572 $3,853
1.38712%
3 ;113,944F ;,=,12480.
.8 $3,853
0.18065% so
0.91292% - ' - ''$ 6 , 938 1 -- $8. 1 77 'Si4 $
3
0.37097%
$6 936 $3,729 ' $1O6 6 5
$3,853
1.12421%:,$6,0361 ... $3,853
4.93879% „„ .7r-349,6431C: $50k5821 $3,853
0.25323%1. `.49i482 $3,853
0.48872%1 $4914 ;4124849 $3,853
0.30484% 66,9361 , • $30;0011 $3,853
1.38228% $6,9361 *13,8951 $26,8311 $3,853
2.68714% $6,931 $27,0121 „ $33.948 $3,853
45.39428% - „ *** *** $3,853
0.78227%1 $6,9361 = *7,864 *14,8001 $3,853
0.19033% $6,936 $1,913 $8,849 $3,853 •
1.66777%1: .,"7$6,9361' $15,7651-:= '=.$23i7011 $3,853
1.34841%1 : 613.5541: : 1 .!' 420,4.91 I $3,853
1.23550%1 .$6,936 $12,4191 *19,3661 $3,8531
0.70001%1, • $6,936 •$7,0371 t13,9731 $3,853
3.66135%1 •$6,9361 $36,8041, $43,7411 $
'2$ loia'st$ liree's$ 1066`06. 1% 906 Z 9.0
I I 6661.$ 1690`96 1926`8$ %ezeos'o
0.38872% $6,936 , • $3,907 $10,844 $3,851
,9
0.66453% $636 : ,
$6,680 413,616 $3,853
0.60646% $6,936 . 66,0961 '$13,033 $3,853
$6
0.48227% ,936 $4,848 *11,784 $3,853
0.18226%1 $6,931 - *1,832 • $8,7681 $3,853
0.33710% $6,936 53,389 ::::.$10,3251 $3,853
1.20647% $ $12028 $19,0641 $3,853
0.55323% , 66,9361 .5,561 _812,4981 $3,853
0.81937% $6,936 $8,236 „ *15,173 $3,853
I
13.00182%1 $6,9361 $130,6961 $137,6331 $3,8531
100.0000%1 $256,6431 $519,218 $146,4111
'7. which includes administrative. manaaement. and oversiaht. but
9'L
Z
9601.
17'1.
8:17'Z
17Z' I.1-
9E'L 1.
Iss 1
99
880
Z 1-'1.
9•8
C'Z
99
Z9'08
L6
202
L9'1.
L9'8
691-
16.66
281.44
91;1.
9917
Vein
t7C'17
99'L
IL
171.'9
ZI;£
ZI.17
1.17
66'Z
91.2
60'Z
EYE
917' L
90
1.0"t?
i
ILA County Unincorp. 1 80.611
'Total 1 619.991
* Based on total costs of $2.177.61
i t
Alhambra
11a9
e!PeoiV
Bell Gardens
Bradbury
Burbank
Caltrans
'Calabasas 1
Carson
Commerce
Compton
Cudahy
Downey
Duarte
El Monte
Glendale
Hidden Hills
Huntington Park
Irwindale
La Canada Flintridge
Long Beach
Los Angeles
poomAeiril
poomuAi
Monrovia
Montebello
Monterey Park
Paramount
1Pasadena 1
Pico Rivera
Rosemead
San Fernando
San Gabriel
San Marino
Sierra Madre
Signal Hill
South El Monte
South Gate
South Pasadena
Temple City
Vernon